MeaningL, on the other hand, is the matter of relations between expressions; hence the meaningL of an expression is best seen as something like materialisation of the place of the expression within the system of language, or of its role within the actual language game.
In other words, there is no actual infinity, there is at most potential infinity.
Maybe there is a God who is able to grasp infinity directly and who thus perceives our positing meanings in this way; but for us the compositional way is the only way. Any more direct differentiation is our mythical creature that is licensed by set theory which embraces actual infinity and which can only be talked about, but never really demonstrated.
Thus from the point of view of the doctrine of meaning it makes no sense to say of the actual individual, who is at once a man and a biped, that his rationality is essential and his two-leggedness accidental or vice versa.
Before the actual construction he does not have the idea of the construction.
In an actual aesthetic controversy or inquiry several questions arise: (1) How do we use such words as "beautiful"?
I must emphasize that I am not trying to do speculative evolutionary biology, rather I am trying to do a logical analysis of the relations between prelinguistic cognitive capacities and language, with the aim of figuring out what language is. In response to earlier drafts of this article, some people thought I was trying to enter into current discussions of animal cognition and the actual evolution of language.
Though actual discourse takes place in time, the intentionality of the discourse is in discrete segments in a way that the flow of prelinguistic thought and perception in action in conscious life is not in that way in discrete segments.
Another resource that we have is that the actual structure of our conscious, perceptual experiences makes objects with their features salient.
In actual languages these feature placing utterances can often be done with one word.